The dialectic once again

[Louise Michel]

Okay, hoping this doesn't end up in Trash again - which benefits nobody.

Here's the problem. Trotsky, leader of the St. Petersburg Soviet, Lenin, leader of the Russian Revolution, both advocated dialectics. It's possible to argue that they only turned to dialectics in bad times but that's unlikely given that both were extremely conscious individuals who were aware of what and how they were reasoning at any time. We only have their writings to go on and this necessarily leaves out at a lot.

It is also difficult to see what dialectics brings to a knowledge of history. Why should there be abstract categories of any sort that transcend real events? Why should there be theoretical categories that can explain feudalism and capitalism (apart from the fact that it makes it easier for us to think about). In short, isn't dialectics just an a-historical abstract theory that's used to explain everything?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

time before expected rosa arival

seven hours.

[Louise Michel]

Less, I think.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Nice to know I am needed.

Louise:


Here's the problem. Trotsky, leader of the St. Petersburg Soviet, Lenin, leader of the Russian Revolution, both advocated dialectics. It's possible to argue that they only turned to dialectics in bad times but that's unlikely given that both were extremely conscious individuals who were aware of what and how they were reasoning at any time. We only have their writings to go on and this necessarily leaves out at a lot.Well, what supporters of the 'dialectic' need to show is how it was in any way helpful to Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks during the revolution.

Then they will need to show from the record when and how it was in fact used.


In short, isn't dialectics just an a-historical abstract theory that's used to explain everything?Well, no it cannot in fact explain anything at all, any more than this can:

http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html


'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


This is less immediately obvious when it comes to the 'dialectic', but it's nonetheless so for all that.

[blake 3:17]

I'm big on Carroll and dialectical thinkers. It is a kind of mysticism -- pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. Things change.

My question is, where did the Cheshire Cat's body go when all was present was its smile? First to appear, last to disappear.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^This is not something a materialist should feel proud of admitting.

[ZeroNowhere]

Lenin was certainly a dedicated diamatician, he even read Hegel's dialectic of matter... materialistically, apparently. Though he was not quite Marcuse on that, to be fair. Still, I don't see what exactly the problem is here? If Lenin believed in emission theory, that wouldn't really make it any more credible, and it would be a case of him being wrong. So yes, I suppose that unless you can find how Lenin used dialectics in the practice of the Russian Revolution, there's not a whole lot to say.

[Louise Michel]

Lenin was certainly a dedicated diamatician, he even read Hegel's dialectic of matter... materialistically, apparently. Though he was not quite Marcuse on that, to be fair. Still, I don't see what exactly the problem is here? If Lenin believed in emission theory, that wouldn't really make it any more credible, and it would be a case of him being wrong. So yes, I suppose that unless you can find how Lenin used dialectics in the practice of the Russian Revolution, there's not a whole lot to say.

Well, I'm going to take a long look at that very issue because it seems odd to say the least that Lenin would say that dialectics was at the core of his thinking and then not use it at all. The same goes for Trotsky. We know he used dialectics explicitly in the analysis of the Soviet Union and I'm guessing if you could ask him he'd say he also used it in the analysis of fascism and the Spanish civil war and so on.

However what I'm talking about goes beyond dialectics. Trotsky defined the 1930's Soviet Union as a degenerated workers state. This Rosa claims was the result of dialectical double-think. Perhaps. But then Rosa's alternative is to say that the Soviet Union was capitalist. This is because within the framework of HM (with or without dialectics) you only have two alternatives. If the Soviet Union was not a workers state it must have been a capitalist state. I think though you have to jump through just as many hoops to 'prove' that the Soviet Union was capitalism without a market or commodities as you do to 'prove' it was a workers state without the workers having political or economic power.

The problem comes down to the willingness to impose pre-defined abstract categories on reality even where they are clearly not appropriate or where they cannot be clearly demonstrated. Thus when Marx talks about social revolutions being driven by the need to develop the productive forces he's retrospectively imposing an abstraction on the whole of social reality. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this as long as the categories don't become more important than reality (in the minds of the people using them).

But if we take Marx's dictum that no mode of production ever passes away until the productive forces have been developed to their maximum potential within it then don't we have to say that social revolution in the 1920's was impossible because with the benefit of hindsight capitalism had far from exhausted its potential to develop the productive forces? If not then revolution becomes a matter of conjuncture (hate that word) rather than an event driven by the historical process.

So it seems to me that dialectics is far from being the heart of the matter when we look at revolutionary theory - there's a schematism and rigidity and worship of the idea of which dialectics is only a part.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


Well, I'm going to take a long look at that very issue because it seems odd to say the least that Lenin would say that dialectics was at the core of his thinking and then not use it at all. The same goes for Trotsky. We know he used dialectics explicitly in the analysis of the Soviet Union and I'm guessing if you could ask him he'd say he also used it in the analysis of fascism and the Spanish civil war and so on.

But, this is quite a common phenomenon. For example, religious believers might possess what they would call a 'deep faith', and entrust their lives to 'god', but these mystical ideas can often have little effect on what they do. For example, theists still look before they cross the road, and they take medicine when it is prescribed.

Sure there are exceptions to this rule, but that just shows that it is possible to hold mystical ideas very deeply, and yet for these not to have any practical consequences of any note.

Now, not only is there no evidence at all that Lenin the Bolsheviks used dialectics in the Russian Revolution in their practical deliberations, or in their interface with the working class and the peasants, what evidence we do have suggests they did not even use it when discussing among themselves! -- until the revolution began to fail.

And, no wonder, dialectical 'thought' would cloud the issues.

Why, you can't even get the mystics here to tell you in what way their 'theory' helps their practice!


But then Rosa's alternative is to say that the Soviet Union was capitalist. This is because within the framework of HM (with or without dialectics) you only have two alternatives. If the Soviet Union was not a workers state it must have been a capitalist state. I think though you have to jump through just as many hoops to 'prove' that the Soviet Union was capitalism without a market or commodities as you do to 'prove' it was a workers state without the workers having political or economic power.

And yet I do not use dialectics to show this. Sure, I have to modify what Marx had to say in order to do this, but that is what happens in science all the time. What I do not do is appeal to the contradictory nature of anything as an easy way to prove whatever I like. But, dialecticians do this all the time.


The problem comes down to the willingness to impose pre-defined abstract categories on reality even where they are clearly not appropriate or where they cannot be clearly demonstrated. Thus when Marx talks about social revolutions being driven by the need to develop the productive forces he's retrospectively imposing an abstraction on the whole of social reality. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this as long as the categories don't become more important than reality (in the minds of the people using them).

There is in fact no problem with imposing certain forms on the world -- us Wittgensteinians call these 'norms of representation'. Scientists do this all the time. Problems only arise when these forms are also seen as part of reality too; when that happens a scientific theory turns into a metaphysical theory.

However, with respect to dialectics, things are far worse. It makes no sense to impose dialectics on the world as a 'form of representation', since this theory makes no sense to begin with!

If we needed a scientific theory to help us understand and thus change the world, dialectics would not make the bottom of the reserve list of likely candidates, so confused is it.


So it seems to me that dialectics is far from being the heart of the matter when we look at revolutionary theory - there's a schematism and rigidity and worship of the idea of which dialectics is only a part.

Indeed, but then science is itself rather rigid and conservative. Now that can be put down to many different things, but chief among these is the class nature (or rather class function) of much of modern science (coupled with the influence of bourgeois ideology). Revolutionary theory has certainly aped this, but then that is because of the class origin and current class position of leading Marxists, and the class-compromised origin of dialectics.

[Louise Michel]

But, this is quite a common phenomenon. For example, religious believers might possess what they would call a 'deep faith', and entrust their lives to 'god', but these mystical ideas can often have little effect on what they do. For example, theists still look before they cross the road, and they take medicine when it is prescribed.

Sure there are exceptions to this rule, but that just shows that it is possible to hold mystical ideas very deeply, and yet for these not to have any practical consequences of any note.

Now, not only is there no evidence at all that Lenin the Bolsheviks used dialectics in the Russian Revolution in their practical deliberations, or in their interface with the working class and the peasants, what evidence we do have suggests they did not even use it when discussing among themselves! -- until the revolution began to fail.

Yes, but Lenin and Trotsky were not mystics - they were practical revolutionaries engaged in the process of organising a revolution. I'm pretty sure that Trotsky describes his discovery of the dialectic in 'My Life'. As I recall he was in prison, I think following the 1905 revolution. I'll find the reference when I have time.


And yet I do not use dialectics to show this. Sure, I have to modify what Marx had to say in order to do this, but that is what happens in science all the time. What I do not do is appeal to the contradictory nature of anything as an easy way to prove whatever I like. But, dialecticians do this all the time.

That's exactly my point. Without dialectics you managed to characterize a society that has no commodity production and no law of value as capitalist. Why? Because HM only allows 2 possibilities and capitalism is presumably more acceptable to you. It makes no sense at all however to impose the category 'capitalism' on the post 1928 Soviet Union.


There is in fact no problem with imposing certain forms on the world -- us Wittgensteinians call these 'norms of representation'. Scientists do this all the time. Problems only arise when these forms are also seen as part of reality too; when that happens a scientific theory turns into a metaphysical theory.

Okay, but with a nod towards the thread on determinism is there not a strong deterministic element to HM (again with or without dialectics)? The final conflict between capitalist and worker is seen as inevitable even if the outcome of the struggle, socialism or barbarism, is left open. And this final conflict is for HM the product of thousands of years of human development. It's not an accident, it's somehow programmed in at the beginning of human civilization. Isn't this a rather mystical idea?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


Yes, but Lenin and Trotsky were not mystics - they were practical revolutionaries engaged in the process of organising a revolution. I'm pretty sure that Trotsky describes his discovery of the dialectic in 'My Life'. As I recall he was in prison, I think following the 1905 revolution. I'll find the reference when I have time.

In so far as they accepted this theory, they were dialectical mystics, since this theory is a total mystery, and attributes to nature powers and properties they could not explain except in mystical terms.

No wonder that when it came to changing the world, they found they could not use it.

Mystics can be revolutionaries, too. Look at Thomas Munster, Abraham Lincoln and Oliver Cromwell.

And, as I have noted in discussion with you before, dialecticians overtly turn to this 'theory' when in defeat. So, your anecdote about Trotsky confirms this. Lenin did the same when in exile. [There are plenty of other examples; you can find them listed in Essay Nine Part Two.] And this is because dialectics acts as a form of consolation, since it tells those whose brains it colonises that fundamental forces which power the entire universe are on their side. They are thus like secular Jesuits.

In addition, and because of the dialectical thesis that appearances are 'contradicted' by underlying 'essences', it helps convince them that despite what their eyes tell them, that Dialectical Marxism is a long-tern failure, this appearance can be ignored since underlying reality tells them that it is the opposite, a success, or it will be soon. So, it consoles them rather effectively for such defeats and set-backs.

Because of this, you will find it impossible to argue with these Hermetic victims. Even though they spare no effort in trying to tell us that truth is tested in practice, they refuse to look at their practice (almost total and long-term failure) and see this as a refutation of their theory. In the end, their own theory is the only one that is in effect exempted from their own test! And dialectics allows them to do this, too.


That's exactly my point. Without dialectics you managed to characterize a society that has no commodity production and no law of value as capitalist. Why? Because HM only allows 2 possibilities and capitalism is presumably more acceptable to you. It makes no sense at all however to impose the category 'capitalism' on the post 1928 Soviet Union.

It may be false, I'll grant you that, but there is no way that it makes no sense.

Now, I can tell you in extensive detail why dialectics makes no sense, but can you tell me why the theory of state capitalism makes no sense?


Okay, but with a nod towards the thread on determinism is there not a strong deterministic element to HM (again with or without dialectics)? The final conflict between capitalist and worker is seen as inevitable even if the outcome of the struggle, socialism or barbarism, is left open. And this final conflict is for HM the product of thousands of years of human development. It's not an accident, it's somehow programmed in at the beginning of human civilization. Isn't this a rather mystical idea?

Well there is an element of determinism in HM if one allows ruling-class ideas (like those I outlined in the determinism thread) to filter in.


The final conflict between capitalist and worker is seen as inevitable even if the outcome of the struggle, socialism or barbarism, is left open. And this final conflict is for HM the product of thousands of years of human development. It's not an accident, it's somehow programmed in at the beginning of human civilization. Isn't this a rather mystical idea?

I disagree. There is nothing inevitable here, unless, once more, you import anthropomorphic philosophical concepts into HM from the outside. As you are using it, 'inevitable' functions here in precisely this way. Asked to fill in the details, you are going to have use such concepts. So, at some point you will have to tell us how a word connected with human action ('inevitable', that is, something that cannot be avoided -- i.e., cannot avoided by human intervention -- nature cannot avoid anything; things just happen or they do not. Nature did not avoid anything when, say, the dinosaurs were wiped out. To suggest otherwise would be to attribute to nature foresight. To do the same to human history implies it too acts with foresight) does not carry these over into a process that governs human history.

So, it's your re-casting of HM that is mystical, not mine.

[Louise Michel]

Mystics can be revolutionaries, too. Look at Thomas Munster, Abraham Lincoln and Oliver Cromwell.

And, as I have noted in discussion with you before, dialecticians overtly turn to this 'theory' when in defeat. So, your anecdote about Trotsky confirms this. Lenin did the same when in exile. [There are plenty of other examples; you can find them listed in Essay Nine Part Two.] And this is because dialectics acts as a form of consolation, since it tells those whose brains it colonises that fundamental forces which power the entire universe are on their side. They are thus like secular Jesuits.

Neither Munster nor Lincoln nor Cromwell were proletarian revolutionaries. Isn't there a difference? The point about Trotsky is that he talks in 'My Life' about the dialectic not as something temporary that sustained him while he was in prison but as something that informed his view of history and politics thoughout his life. I'll try and find the reference in the next few days.


It may be false, I'll grant you that, but there is no way that it makes no sense.

Now, I can tell you in extensive detail why dialectics makes no sense, but can you tell me why the theory of state capitalism makes no sense?

Well, all meaning has context and in the context of the post 1928 Soviet Union when the entire economy was centralized under state control, when the market was eliminated and production decisions were taken by bureaucrats the term 'state capitalism' has no meaning. Prior to this yes, under NEP, but post 1928 it's completely bizarre. If you are saying, sometimes state capitalism has meaning but dialectics never has meaning you may be right, but the idea that Stalin was a capitalist is idiotic.


I disagree. There is nothing inevitable here, unless, once more, you import anthropomorphic philosophical concepts into HM from the outside. As you are using it, 'inevitable' functions here in precisely this way. Asked to fill in the details, you are going to have use such concepts. So, at some point you will have to tell us how a word connected with human action ('inevitable', that is, something that cannot be avoided -- i.e., cannot avoided by human intervention -- nature cannot avoid anything; things just happen or they do not. Nature did not avoid anything when, say, the dinosaurs were wiped out. To suggest otherwise would be to attribute to nature foresight. To do the same to human history implies it too acts with foresight) does not carry these over into a process that governs human history.

So, it's your re-casting of HM that is mystical, not mine.

So, in your view, could history have taken a different course? Could we have stopped at slave society or continued on to something that was not feudalism and perhaps never arrived at capitalism?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


Neither Munster nor Lincoln nor Cromwell were proletarian revolutionaries. Isn't there a difference? The point about Trotsky is that he talks in 'My Life' about the dialectic not as something temporary that sustained him while he was in prison but as something that informed his view of history and politics throughout his life. I'll try and find the reference in the next few days.

Well, neither Lenin nor Trotsky were proletarian revolutionaries, either, but petty-bourgeois revolutionaries acting on behalf of the working class -- but it makes no difference. The point is that mystics can be revolutionaries, whatever class they are fighting for or on behalf of.

And, as much as you would like to think otherwise, Trotsky hardly ever mentioned this 'theory' in his writings until after his isolation and political quarantine in the 1930s. Sure he gestured toward it at other times too, but it only assumed a major role in his thought after c1935. But, even if this were not so, you'd be hard pressed to show how it informed his practice -- except negatively.


Well, all meaning has context and in the context of the post 1928 Soviet Union when the entire economy was centralized under state control, when the market was eliminated and production decisions were taken by bureaucrats the term 'state capitalism' has no meaning. Prior to this yes, under NEP, but post 1928 it's completely bizarre. If you are saying, sometimes state capitalism has meaning but dialectics never has meaning you may be right, but the idea that Stalin was a capitalist is idiotic.

Where on earth did you get the idea that "all meaning has context"?

But, even if you are right, unless you think that the former USSR was a sealed society, cut-off from international rivalry, and the pressures of capitalist imperialism, then it does make sense in the world imperialist system (in this wider context) to classify the former USSR as state capitalist. The bureaucratic elite there subjected the working class to systematic oppression and exploitation in order to compete on a world scale with other imperialist powers.

Now, this may be false (but I do not think so), but it makes sense.


but the idea that Stalin was a capitalist is idiotic.

No more than thinking he was a socialist is -- but considerably less all the same.


So, in your view, could history have taken a different course? Could we have stopped at slave society or continued on to something that was not feudalism and perhaps never arrived at capitalism?

Well, what I think is not relevant, here. But, as I noted in the determinism thread:


Language, originally the result of collective labour and developed as a means of communication, is not too good at representing things. In order to try to do so, theorists found they had to take words which express the relations human beings have with one another and with nature and then apply them to the relations that exist in nature itself. Unless great care is taken, these words will carry with them the inter-human connotations they possess in their ordinary use. Alas, traditional theorists were recklessly careless.

Superstitious individuals had earlier tried to interpret natural processes as the work of various assorted 'spirits' and 'gods', using anthropomorphic language in order to do so. Later, in more developed class society, priests and theologians systematically indulged in this 'art form' for ideological reasons (i.e., to suggest that the natural and social order was divinely-ordained, and so could not and should not be resisted).

Subsequently, as we can see from the record, ancient Greek thinkers began looking for increasingly secular ways of theorising about the world (to give a less animistic rationale for the new forms of class society beginning to emerge in the 6th century BC), but they retained this transferred and transformed language, not noticing they had in fact banished the aforementioned 'spirits' and 'gods' in name only (as Feuerbach half recognised) -- but, the anthropomorphic connotations still remained, and there they remain to this day.

Bold added.

When we try to represent to ourselves the course of history, it is no less important that we are careful with our use of language lest we inadvertently attribute to history foresight and a will of its own.

If now I ever have something I want to say about historical materialism, and if you are still around at RevLeft, I promise you will be the first to be told.

[Louise Michel]

Well, neither Lenin nor Trotsky were proletarian revolutionaries, either, but petty-bourgeois revolutionaries acting on behalf of the working class -- but it makes no difference. The point is that mystics can be revolutionaries, whatever class they are fighting for or on behalf of.

And, as much as you would like to think otherwise, Trotsky hardly ever mentioned this 'theory' in his writings until after his isolation and political quarantine in the 1930s. Sure he gestured toward it at other times too, but it only assumed a major role in his thought after c1935. But, even if this were not so, you'd be hard pressed to show how it informed his practice -- except negatively.

I agree that mystics can be revolutionaries but I don't think Lenin and Trotsky were mystics. I do though think that they elevated theory above reality. This was particularly clear in Trotsky's case - his insistence that the masses would look to his ramshackle fourth international for leadership was completely divorced from reality.


Where on earth did you get the idea that "all meaning has context"?

Well, from language for example:

Thinking about the negation of the negation has put me off my breakfast.
Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.

Exactly the same verb - to put off - in different contexts has two completely different meanings.

Political and social theories exist in a particular culture and make sense or have meaning in that culture. If there is such a thing as absolute truth I doubt we are capable of representing it in a theory so we're stuck with relativism.

I bet you don't agree with that!


But, even if you are right, unless you think that the former USSR was a sealed society, cut-off from international rivalry, and the pressures of capitalist imperialism, then it does make sense in the world imperialist system (in this wider context) to classify the former USSR as state capitalist. The bureaucratic elite there subjected the working class to systematic oppression and exploitation in order to compete on a world scale with other imperialist powers.

But, wait a minute, you're saying that the theory of state capitalism makes sense in the context of the world imperialist system. So perhaps we agree after all. :cool:

If you consider capitalism to be generalized commodity production then there's no way to define the Soviet Union as capitalist. To do so you need a new definition of capitalism without commodities and the law of value. The problem is that if you describe a society that functions without commodity exchange you aren't describing capitalism. It's something else and needs a new name. The fact that the Soviet Union came under pressure from imperialism and was exploitative and oppressive doesn't change this.


Now, this may be false (but I do not think so), but it makes sense.

Not to me.


When we try to represent to ourselves the course of history, it is no less important that we are careful with our use of language lest we inadvertently attribute to history foresight and a will of its own.

I agree. But I think Marx did do this at least by implication. The Communist Manifesto which of course preceded the economic analysis by 20 or 30 years was already predicting the proletarian revolution on the basis of a very schematic view of human history. I think both Lenin and Trotsky thought that the 1920's would see the fulfilment of the prophecy. Lenin of course barely witnessed the fact that it wasn't going to happen but Trotsky seems to have been completely disoriented when history didn't play itself out as it was supposed to.


If now I ever have something I want to say about historical materialism, and if you are still around at RevLeft, I promise you will be the first to be told.

I'll look forward to the PM!;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


I agree that mystics can be revolutionaries but I don't think Lenin and Trotsky were mystics. I do though think that they elevated theory above reality. This was particularly clear in Trotsky's case - his insistence that the masses would look to his ramshackle fourth international for leadership was completely divorced from reality.

Of course, you are entitled to your view, but their own writings tell a different story: that when it came to dialectics, they were indeed mystics. And Lenin even provided us with a materialist explanation of this phenomenon, summarised here:



"[T]he defeat of the 1905 revolution, like all such defeats, carried confusion and demoralisation into the ranks of the revolutionaries…. The forward rush of the revolution had helped unite the leadership…on strategic questions and so…intellectual differences could be left to private disagreement. But when defeat magnifies every tactical disagreement, forcing revolutionaries to derive fresh strategies from a re-examination of the fundamentals of Marxism, theoretical differences were bound to become important. As Tony Cliff explains:


"'With politics apparently failing to overcome the horrors of the Tsarist regime, escape into the realm of philosophical speculation became the fashion….'

"Philosophical fashion took a subjectivist, personal, and sometimes religious turn…. Bogdanov drew inspiration from the theories of physicist Ernst Mach and philosopher Richard Avenarius…. [Mach retreated] from Kant's ambiguous idealism to the pure idealism of Berkeley and Hume….

"It was indeed Mach and Bogdanov's 'ignorance of dialectics' that allowed them to 'slip into idealism.' Lenin was right to highlight the link between Bogdanov's adoption of idealism and his failure to react correctly to the downturn in the level of the struggle in Russia." [Rees (1998), pp.173-79, quoting Cliff (1975), p.290. Bold emphases added. (However, I can find no reference to "dialectics" in Cliff's book.)]

As Cliff goes on to argue:


"With politics apparently failing to overcome the horrors of the Tsarist regime, escape into the realm of philosophical speculation became the fashion. And in the absence of any contact with a real mass movement, everything had to be proved from scratch -- nothing in the traditions of the movement, none of its fundamentals, was immune from constant questioning.

"...In this discussion Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, Bazarov and others tried to combine marxism with the neo-Kantian theory of knowledge put forward by Ernst Mach, and Richard Avenarius. Lunacharsky went as far as to speak openly in favour of fideism. Lunacharsky used religious metaphors, speaking about 'God-seeking' and 'God-building'. Gorky was influenced by Bogdanov and Lunacharsky....

"Lenin's reaction was very sharp indeed. He wrote to Gorky, 'The Catholic priest corrupting young girls...is much less dangerous precisely to "democracy" than a priest without his robes, a priest without crude religion, an ideologically equipped and democratic priest preaching the creation and invention of a god.'" [Cliff (1975), pp.290-91. Bold emphasis added. Quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted at my site.]

But, it is quite clear from this that the experience of defeat (and the lack of materialist input from a mass working-class movement) redirected the attention of certain revolutionaries toward Idealism and toward searching for a mystical explanation for the serious set-backs Russian Marxists had witnessed after 1905. Plainly, that search provided these comrades with some form of consolation -- just as Marx alleged of religion pure and simple.

But, there is another outcome that Rees and others have clearly failed to notice: this major set-back turned Lenin toward Philosophy and dialectics, too. These were subjects which he had largely ignored up until then. While it is true that Bogdanov and the rest turned to Mach, Berkeley, Subjective Idealism, and other assorted irrationalisms, is equally clear that Lenin too reverted to Hegel and 'objective' Mysticism.

Nevertheless, Lenin's warning shows that revolutionaries themselves are not immune to the pressures that lead human beings in general to seek consolation in order to counteract disappointment, demoralisation and alienation. As we have seen, Lenin was well aware that alien-class ideas (which 'satisfied' such needs) could enter the workers' movement from the "outside" at certain times.

References and more details can be found here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

Alas, Lenin forgot to apply this explanation to himself!

But that should not stop us.


Well, from language for example:

Thinking about the negation of the negation has put me off my breakfast.
Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.

Exactly the same verb - to put off - in different contexts has two completely different meanings.

Ok, but how does this show that "all meaning has context". Even twenty examples can't prove that.

Of course, part of the problem here is also the fact that the word "meaning" itself has many different meanings:


(1) Personal Significance: as in "His Teddy Bear means a lot to him."

(2) Evaluative import: as in "May Day means different things to different classes."

(3) Point or purpose: as in "Life has no meaning."

(4) Linguistic meaning: as in "'Vixen' means 'female fox'", "'Chien' means 'dog'", or "Recidivist" means someone who has resumed their criminal career.

(5) Aim or intention: as in "They mean to win this strike."

(6) Implication: as in "Winning this dispute means that management won't try another wage cut again in a hurry."

(7) Indicate, point to, or presage: as in "Those clouds mean rain", or "Those spots mean you have measles."

(8) Reference: as in "I meant him over there", or "'The current president of the USA' means somebody different at least once every eight years."

(9) Artistic or literary import: as in "The meaning of this novel is to examine political integrity."

(10) An indication of conversational focus: as in "I mean, why do we have to accept a measly 1% rise in the first place?"

(11) An expression of sincerity or determination: as in "I mean it, I really do want to go on the march!", or "The demonstrators really mean to stop this war."

(12) The content of a message, or the import of a sign: as in "It means the strike starts on Monday", or "It means you have to queue here."

(13) Interpretation: as in "You will need to read the author's novels if you want to give a new meaning to her latest play", or "That gesture means those pickets think you are a scab."

(14) Import or significance: as in "Part of the meaning of this play is to change our view of drama", or "The real meaning of the agreement is that the bosses have at last learnt their lesson."

(15) Speakers' meaning: as in "When you trod on her foot and she said 'Well done!' she in fact meant the exact opposite."

(16) Communicative meaning: as in "You get my meaning", or "My last letter should tell you what I meant", or "We have just broken their secret code; the last message meant this..."

(17) Explanation: as in "When the comrade said the strike isn't over what she meant was that we can still win!"

This is not to suggest that several of the above do not overlap, or that this is an exhaustive list

More details here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

where I show that meaning, in several of the above senses, cannot be context dependent.


If there is such a thing as absolute truth I doubt we are capable of representing it in a theory so we're stuck with relativism.

Well, I am never sure what those who use the term 'absolute truth' mean by this phrase -- in the end, it often amounts to saying the word 'truth' while thumping the table.

And, as should seem plain, some truths are manifestly relative. For example, 'Bishops can only move diagonally" is only true in chess.


I bet you don't agree with that!

Pity you didn't put money on it then, eh?


But, wait a minute, you're saying that the theory of state capitalism makes sense in the context of the world imperialist system. So perhaps we agree after all.

Well no, just look at what I said:


But, even if you are right, unless you think that the former USSR was a sealed society, cut-off from international rivalry, and the pressures of capitalist imperialism, then it does make sense in the world imperialist system (in this wider context) to classify the former USSR as state capitalist. The bureaucratic elite there subjected the working class to systematic oppression and exploitation in order to compete on a world scale with other imperialist powers.

Now, this may be false (but I do not think so), but it makes sense.

Bold added.

So, I was using your characterisation of meaning against you; I was neither advocating nor adopting it.


If you consider capitalism to be generalized commodity production then there's no way to define the Soviet Union as capitalist. To do so you need a new definition of capitalism without commodities and the law of value. The problem is that if you describe a society that functions without commodity exchange you aren't describing capitalism. It's something else and needs a new name. The fact that the Soviet Union came under pressure from imperialism and was exploitative and oppressive doesn't change this.

In fact, it makes more sense to define capitalism in terms of the relations of production and exploitation, and then connect this with the world capitalist system.

However, I do not think we should derail your thread anymore by continuing to discuss State Capitalist theory.

Raise this again in 'Theory' and I am sure several International Socialist comrades will debate this with you.


Not to me.

Fine, but then you are working with a rather restrictive definition of capitalism.


I agree. But I think Marx did do this at least by implication. The Communist Manifesto which of course preceded the economic analysis by 20 or 30 years was already predicting the proletarian revolution on the basis of a very schematic view of human history. I think both Lenin and Trotsky thought that the 1920's would see the fulfilment of the prophecy. Lenin of course barely witnessed the fact that it wasn't going to happen but Trotsky seems to have been completely disoriented when history didn't play itself out as it was supposed to.

Well, there is far too little in what Marx wrote on historical causation to accuse him of this (but there are passages were he seems to wander down this path a little too far, especially where he uses jargon he lifted from Hegel), but even if you are right, Marx had not fully freed himself from traditional thought, even in old age.

Fortunately, we can now do this, so we have no excuse.

[Louise Michel]

Ok, but how does this show that "all meaning has context". Even twenty examples can't prove that.

Of course, part of the problem here is also the fact that the word "meaning" itself has many different meanings:

Firstly, all the meanings of the word meaning derive their meaning from the context you give them, if you know what I mean.

Secondly, I was using meaning in the sense of what is being communicated between people. The meanings we ascribe to words, gestures, noises, facial expressions, written communications etc. are all heavily dependent on context because we don't live (and indeed cannot survive) in a vacuum.

I will take a look at your essay but it's quite long (unusually for you!) so I guess I'll search out the relevant parts. However I don't see how how it's possible to give an example of context-free human communication.


Pity you didn't put money on it then, eh?

Maybe, but I think the odds would have been very poor.


Well, there is far too little in what Marx wrote on historical causation to accuse him of this (but there are passages were he seems to wander down this path a little too far, especially where he uses jargon he lifted from Hegel), but even if you are right, Marx had not fully freed himself from traditional thought, even in old age.

I'm really not sure about this. The idea that you can look into the past and discern a pattern and use this to predict the future is unreliable at the best of times. Population trends in 'the West' for example were wildly wrong. The ageing population was not anticipated because predictions were based on the baby-boomer generation. If you want to use this method to predict the course of humanity in the future it becomes even less reliable. I wouldn't like to try and calculate the number of variables involved plus there's the fact that the further back you go the more information becomes scarce and unreliable.

I don't know much about Chinese history but I think it is quite different from European history. And 20th century Europe saw the Soviet hybrid as well as Vietnam, China and Cuba none of which fit the classic schema. So I'm not at all sure the patterns Marx identified were universal (I mean the passage from one mode of production to another and how that happens). Also I doubt the workers revolution will occur in the way Marx described. I think it's much more likely to happen as a result of war, possibly between the USA and China when China finally supplants the US as the number one economic power.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


Firstly, all the meanings of the word meaning derive their meaning from the context you give them, if you know what I mean.

Well, we need to see your proof of this.


Secondly, I was using meaning in the sense of what is being communicated between people. The meanings we ascribe to words, gestures, noises, facial expressions, written communications etc. are all heavily dependent on context because we don't live (and indeed cannot survive) in a vacuum.

In that case, this comment of yours depends on context, and since we two do not share the same context, then it must mean something different to both of us. But it can't if we are to communicate successfully, as you say. So, context drops out here.

And, in a few hours time, not even you will have access to the original context of your original words, so you too must fail to access their original meaning, which is absurd.

But far worse, I note you have helped yourself to the word 'context', which, clearly cannot depend on context without your entire case becoming circular.

So, in order to understand your theory, we have to disagree with it.

And so do you!

The problem here is more-or-less the same as that which afflicts 'determinism' and its opposite: in order to express your views about language, you have to try to reperesent to us key features that allow us to use it to facilitate communication. In that case, you have to use a representational model to account for communication. But, this makes representation a more fundamental feature of language. So, in trying to say what it is about language that enables us to say anything to each other, you end up with the exact opposite of what you intended.

As Wittgenstein noted, it is not possible to say in language that makes sense what it is about language that enables us to makes sense in language.

[I develop this argument in considerable detail in Essay Thirteen Part Three.]


I will take a look at your essay but it's quite long (unusually for you!) so I guess I'll search out the relevant parts.

Use the 'Quick Links' at the top to go to the following sections:

(3) Voloshinov And His Popularisers

(a) Occasionalism And Contextualism

(b) Word Meaning Versus Speakers' Meaning

(c) Coughs And Sneezes Spread Confusion

(d) Communication Breakdown

(e) The Meaning Of Words Versus The Sense Of Propositions

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm


However I don't see how it's possible to give an example of context-free human communication

Well, I wouldn't want to, but your claim was that meaning is somehow context dependent, which is not at all the same thing.


I'm really not sure about this. The idea that you can look into the past and discern a pattern and use this to predict the future is unreliable at the best of times. Population trends in 'the West' for example were wildly wrong. The ageing population was not anticipated because predictions were based on the baby-boomer generation. If you want to use this method to predict the course of humanity in the future it becomes even less reliable. I wouldn't like to try and calculate the number of variables involved plus there's the fact that the further back you go the more information becomes scarce and unreliable.

In fact, we all do this all the time. You have a bad experience touching something hot, and, therefore, based on this one experience, invariably avoid the same experience based on an unspoken ability to predict what will almost invariably happen if you ever attempt to repeat it.

A properly constructed HM will just systematise this, based on what we have learnt as a species (not as individuals) about our history.

And I am not sure how demographics is relevant.


I don't know much about Chinese history but I think it is quite different from European history. And 20th century Europe saw the Soviet hybrid as well as Vietnam, China and Cuba none of which fit the classic schema. So I'm not at all sure the patterns Marx identified were universal (I mean the passage from one mode of production to another and how that happens). Also I doubt the workers revolution will occur in the way Marx described. I think it's much more likely to happen as a result of war, possibly between the USA and China when China finally supplants the US as the number one economic power.

Well, I think he got the basics right, but if we are to maintain this as a scientific theory, we need to update and improve it.

[Louise Michel]

In that case, this comment of yours depends on context, and since we two do not share the same context, then it must mean something different to both of us. But it can't if we are to communicate successfully, as you say. So, context drops out here.

And, in a few hours time, not even you will have access to the original context of your original words, so you too must fail to access their original meaning, which is absurd.

But far worse, I note you have helped yourself to the word 'context', which, clearly cannot depend on context without your entire case becoming circular.

So, in order to understand your theory, we have to disagree with it.

And so do you!

A quick response because I haven't looked at your essay yet (it's really a book isn't it?) However I don't agree with this at all. All words have a context and that context is the language itself which we share (amongst other things). So the meaning of context comes from the language developed by a particular group of humans. Of course any word may have multiple meanings depending upon which other words it is combined with but we share the language, so we can communicate at least to a limited degree.

Anyway, I'll get back a bit more tomorrow.

And I have to say Rosa, some of this is starting to sound just a bit dialectical.:cool:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


A quick response because I haven't looked at your essay yet (it's really a book isn't it?) However I don't agree with this at all. All words have a context and that context is the language itself which we share (amongst other things). So the meaning of context comes from the language developed by a particular group of humans. Of course any word may have multiple meanings depending upon which other words it is combined with but we share the language, so we can communicate at least to a limited degree.

Sure, words have context, but you go further and advance a thesis (which you just assume) that context and meaning are somehow connected, which is not the obvious truth you seem to think it is.

Indeed, as those sections of my Essay show, this cannot in general be true.


And I have to say Rosa, some of this is starting to sound just a bit dialectical.

As I have said already: I do not mind the 'dialectic' so long as it is interpreted in Aristotelian, not Hegelian, terms.

But, when this word is mentioned in Marxists circles, it is always assumed to be the latter, not the former. That is why I attack it all the time.

[Louise Michel]

Sure, words have context, but you go further and advance a thesis (which you just assume) that context and meaning are somehow connected, which is not the obvious truth you seem to think it is.

Yes it is unless you are using context in some new and novel way that I'm unaware of.

I don't disagree with much of what you argue in the passage of your essay I've just read. I didn't say the 'intrinsic' meaning of a word changes due to context, although the practical meaning of a word may change if a word has multiple meanings.

I'm not happy though with the use of 'intrinsic' in this context(!) Words have socially agreed meanings that we can find in the dictionary. These meanings are in no way intrinsic. They can and do change, new words appear, other words disappear. For example the word 'awesome' once used to describe the miraculous is now used to describe a movie, a night out, a cup of coffee or more or less anything pleasing.


Louise:


Firstly, all the meanings of the word meaning derive their meaning from the context you give them, if you know what I mean.

Well, we need to see your proof of this.

What's to prove? Would you be happier if I said all the meanings of the word meaning are understood differently depending upon the context (by which I mean the sentence or phrase) in which they appear? Rather than use the word derive?

Of course as you argue there is a difference between sentence meaning and word meaning. Yes we understand new sentences that we hear or read for the first time. We have grammatical rules that allow us to do this - although interestingly we are unable to articulate these rules with any great precision. Every rule has multiple exceptions and even with things as seemingly obvious as verb tenses our explanations are often vague.

As I said in an earlier post I'm talking about meaning in the sense of what information are we conveying to each other. So, for example, I have a friend who comes from the UK. She sometimes greets me with the words 'eeh you bugger' but, oddly, she does this only when it's really cold. From this I understand. 'Hey, how are you doing, it's fu***ng freezing isn't it?'

So how do I make this leap in understanding? At first it was a bit confusing but tone of voice and body language helped, also someone saying, 'she means it's fu***ing freezing' clarified things further. Of course 'eeh' is a noise rather than a word, 'you' is the third person singular or plural and 'bugger' is in British English (I think) someone who has anal sex. Of course when my friend utters this greeting none of the words change their meaning but she has conveyed something that has nothing to do with the generally accepted meaning of the words she used. By context in this case I'm largely referring to the person and the temperature. I know when she says these words she's commenting on the temperature and expressing her discomfort. If however she were to say this on a warm sunny day I would be confused and struggling to understand what she meant.


In that case, this comment of yours depends on context, and since we two do not share the same context, then it must mean something different to both of us. But it can't if we are to communicate successfully, as you say. So, context drops out here.

How do we not share the same context? We speak the same language (with minor variations) and come from more or less the same culture, also we've exchanged a number of times here which provides a level of familiarity - all of which I'd include under the heading 'context.' So I really don't know what you mean here.

There are other matters I'd like to comment on later but on this topic that's it for now.

[Louise Michel]

In fact, we all do this all the time. You have a bad experience touching something hot, and, therefore, based on this one experience, invariably avoid the same experience based on an unspoken ability to predict what will almost invariably happen if you ever attempt to repeat it.

A properly constructed HM will just systematise this, based on what we have learnt as a species (not as individuals) about our history.

And I am not sure how demographics is relevant.

I just wanted to add a comment on this. The demographics comment is relevant because it illustrates how basing future trends on earlier behaviour can go badly wrong. Demographics is a simple matter compared to predicting the entire future of the human race.

The individual learning experience you describe here has far less relevance - of course an individual learns, or can learn, from the past. How is the passage from one mode of production to another comparable? Did the bourgeoisie learn from history or did it just pursue its economic and social interests? What you seem to be proposing is really quite bizarre. Theorists will construct a version of HM that sums up the knowledge the species has accumulated in the last few thousand years and do what? Project our future? Create a new future on the basis of this new understanding?

It seems to me that we're just stumbling through history, it's too soon to say if we're actually moving forward, and the next step will be just as blindly taken as all the others.

[Hit The North]

Clearly, as social agents, acting on the basis of our consciousness, we are blind to the future. Marxists claim that HM reveals the general laws of historical development as they unfold, largely behind the backs of individual agents.

The famous opening paragraphs of the Brumaire clearly express this.

They're also amongst the most dialectical statements in Marx's published work.

[amandevsingh]

I like Jabberwocky.

[Louise Michel]

Following a clash in 'Discrimination' with those, including and admin, who think it's ok to debate whether or not '****' can be used as a term of abuse and the admin coming down on the side of the sexists who think it's just fine to take an intimate female body part and use it as a term of abuse, I am leaving this site in disgust.

You really have to decide what sort of a site you want and who should be on it. I was excused disciplinary action for objecting to people who think it's ok to call me a **** on the basis of my newness. Well I'm not that new and I don't see why I should be polite to those who want to abuse me.

Is the women question important or not?

Here clearly not and you've undoubtedly driven away many good women with this ignorance and tolerance of abusive male know-nothing brats.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


I just wanted to add a comment on this. The demographics comment is relevant because it illustrates how basing future trends on earlier behaviour can go badly wrong. Demographics is a simple matter compared to predicting the entire future of the human race.

Indeed, but I fail to see how this affects HM.


The individual learning experience you describe here has far less relevance - of course an individual learns, or can learn, from the past. How is the passage from one mode of production to another comparable? Did the bourgeoisie learn from history or did it just pursue its economic and social interests? What you seem to be proposing is really quite bizarre. Theorists will construct a version of HM that sums up the knowledge the species has accumulated in the last few thousand years and do what? Project our future? Create a new future on the basis of this new understanding?

Well, this is to stray into HM, which is off-topic. But, I added the 'anecdote' to show that we can, quite often predict the future. Now when it comes to HM, we are able to make certain predictions (connected with the constant drive to war, the concentration of capital in larger and larger units, the increasing trend to concentrate wealth at one end of the economy, the increasingly relative disparity in wealth, the constant tendency of the system to fall into crisis, and so on).


It seems to me that we're just stumbling through history, it's too soon to say if we're actually moving forward, and the next step will be just as blindly taken as all the others.

I fail to see how you can say this if you are on the left. Or is this a sign that you no longer are?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


They're also amongst the most dialectical statements in Marx's published work.

Which, as we know, he abandoned (in the traditional sense ) by the time he wrote Das Kapital.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


Yes it is unless you are using context in some new and novel way that I'm unaware of....

What's to prove? Would you be happier if I said all the meanings of the word meaning are understood differently depending upon the context (by which I mean the sentence or phrase) in which they appear? Rather than use the word derive?


Well, no I think we are using it in the same way, but, even if we aren't, you are still advancing a substantial thesis about the connection between meaning and context, which you just assume to be the case, when 1) You haven't demonstrated this, and 2) It is possible to show that meaning and context, by and large, cannot be linked in this way.

And I am not pressing you for a more comprehensive, or different theory of meaning, since I deny that there can be such a thing.


I didn't say the 'intrinsic' meaning of a word changes due to context, although the practical meaning of a word may change if a word has multiple meanings.

But, if so, you need to show that it is context that does this [I]in every case, or your thesis must fail.


I'm not happy though with the use of 'intrinsic' in this context(!) Words have socially agreed meanings that we can find in the dictionary. These meanings are in no way intrinsic. They can and do change, new words appear, other words disappear. For example the word 'awesome' once used to describe the miraculous is now used to describe a movie, a night out, a cup of coffee or more or less anything pleasing.

I'm not happy with this term either; I only use it in that essay since Voloshinov and his interpreters do.

But, check out what I have to say about meaning change below -- in fact I devote a section to this point in that essay.


Of course as you argue there is a difference between sentence meaning and word meaning. Yes we understand new sentences that we hear or read for the first time. We have grammatical rules that allow us to do this - although interestingly we are unable to articulate these rules with any great precision. Every rule has multiple exceptions and even with things as seemingly obvious as verb tenses our explanations are often vague.

Indeed, but if this were a significant and constant feature of language, we would not be able to communicate across wide areas of social interaction -- such as on the internet, when we (you and I) are separated by thousands of miles and largely different ages and backgrounds.


As I said in an earlier post I'm talking about meaning in the sense of what information are we conveying to each other. So, for example, I have a friend who comes from the UK. She sometimes greets me with the words 'eeh you bugger' but, oddly, she does this only when it's really cold. From this I understand. 'Hey, how are you doing, it's fu***ng freezing isn't it?'

Indeed, but she could only do this if these words have their usual meaning, as I point out in the essay you read:


'Hey, how are you doing, it's fu***ng freezing isn't it?'

You:


So how do I make this leap in understanding? At first it was a bit confusing but tone of voice and body language helped, also someone saying, 'she means it's fu***ing freezing' clarified things further. Of course 'eeh' is a noise rather than a word, 'you' is the third person singular or plural and 'bugger' is in British English (I think) someone who has anal sex. Of course when my friend utters this greeting none of the words change their meaning but she has conveyed something that has nothing to do with the generally accepted meaning of the words she used. By context in this case I'm largely referring to the person and the temperature. I know when she says these words she's commenting on the temperature and expressing her discomfort. If however she were to say this on a warm sunny day I would be confused and struggling to understand what she meant.

Once more, this is to run together 'speaker's meaning' and 'linguistic meaning' once more, as I pointed out in that Essay --, in this passage, among others:


To be sure, deliberate errors over syntax -- in addition to the innovative use of vocabulary and sentence structure -- can extend the meaning of words and sentences (manifestly, this often happens in literature, and in the course of the social evolution of language etc. -- in fact, Voloshinov himself gives a rather good example of such a change on pp.55-56 of his book) -- but this may only take place when it is based on already present shared word use, and on a locally-universal grammar. This must be so if total incomprehension is to be avoided. That is partly why my use of "BBB XXX ZZZ QQQ TTT" (in V7, from earlier) did not amount to a literary event of any great moment -- whatever intentions lay behind it.

This point can be illustrated by considering an example taken from an idiosyncratic use of language that occurs annually in a school where an acquaintance of mine teaches (and which I am sure happens elsewhere). There are regular charitable events all year; one of these involves the pupils each paying £1 so that they may attend school casually dressed -- i.e., without their uniforms for that set day, but in clothes of their own choosing. The staff can also pay whatever they feel is appropriate so that they, too, can wear whatever clothes they want on the same day. A collection box in the staff room has a notice on it that reads: "Put your own clothes money in here", which on the face of it does not seem to make much sense. Whether you pay or not you are presumably going to wear your own clothes! However, the circumstances surrounding the use of this sentence changes the meaning (or interpretation) of some of the words it contains. Here: "own clothes" is short for something like: "your own choice of clothes" (but even this is misleading, since whatever is selected will represent a choice of clothes by the wearer), or, perhaps, "clothes not required by your contract of employment or code of conduct" (etc.). Now, this is a clear case of the use of a sentence in particular surroundings where the ordinary meaning of some of the words it contains is not ascertainable solely from their past employment. Having said that, the novel use of a sentence like this is still clearly related to the established meaning of its constituent terms -- otherwise the notice on the box could have read "Place a dead kipper on the computer's maiden aunt" (with the meaning of each of these words having no connection with their past use, either), while supposedly 'meaning' the 'same' as the actual sentence used.

You:


How do we not share the same context? We speak the same language (with minor variations) and come from more or less the same culture, also we've exchanged a number of times here which provides a level of familiarity - all of which I'd include under the heading 'context.' So I really don't know what you mean here.

Well, it all depends on what you mean by 'context'.

[ZeroNowhere]

Clearly, as social agents, acting on the basis of our consciousness, we are blind to the future. Marxists claim that HM reveals the general laws of historical development as they unfold, largely behind the backs of individual agents.

The famous opening paragraphs of the Brumaire clearly express this.

They're also amongst the most dialectical statements in Marx's published work.
Indeed, for example, his statement that motion is a contradiction and the finite has non-being as its essence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

But motion isn't a contradiction, and here is why:


According to Hegel, motion is 'contradictory'. Unfortunately, dialecticians have bought into this rather odd idea, too. Almost as if they were singing from the same hymn sheet, they all tend to argue alongside Engels as follows:


"...[A]s soon as we consider things in their motion, their change, their life, their reciprocal influence on one another[,] [t]hen we immediately become involved in contradictions. Motion itself is a contradiction: even simple mechanical change of place can only come about through a body at one and the same moment of time being both in one place and in another place, being in one and the same place and also not in it. And the continuous assertion and simultaneous solution of this contradiction is precisely what motion is." [Engels (1976) Anti-Duhring, p.152.]

This is an age-old confusion derived from a paradox invented by an Ancient Greek mystic called Zeno (490?-430?BC).

In fact, as should seem obvious, all objects (which are not mathematical points) occupy several places at once. So, for example, while you are sat reading this Essay, your body is not compressed into a tiny point! Unless you have suffered an horrific accident, your head will not be in the exact same location as your feet, even though both of these body parts occupy the same place -- i.e., where you are sat.

[Note the ambiguity here, connected with words like "place" and "location"; more on that presently.]

Hence, a material object can be in several places at once (in one sense of "place"), in one place and in another at the same time. And it can be in the first but not wholly in the second, at the same time, and stationary all the while.

For example, a car could be parked half in, half out of a garage. Here the car is in one and the same place and not in it, and it is in two places at once (in the garage and in the yard), even while it is at rest relative to a suitable frame of reference.

In that case, this alleged 'contradiction' does not distinguish moving from stationary bodies. So, this alleged 'contradiction' has more to do with ambiguity than it has with anything allegedly paradoxical in material reality.

Of course, exception could be taken to the above use of phrases like "not wholly in" one place or another, on the grounds that Engels was quite clear about what he meant: motion plainly involves a body being in one place and in another at the same time, being in and not in that place at one and the same moment.

But, this objection depends on what Engels actually meant by the following words:


"even simple mechanical change of place can only come about through a body at one and the same moment of time being both in one place and in another place, being in one and the same place and also not in it." [Ibid.]

For example, a cake in tin on a shelf in a supermarket can be in one place and in another at the same time (in the tin and in the supermarket), and stationary for all that. Moreover, a cat could fall asleep in the doorway of a room, and could thus be in the room and not in it at the same time. Once again, ambiguities built into language allow for these eventualities. Engels failed to notice this.

In Essay Five (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2005.htm) I make several attempts to disambiguate Engels's words to try to make sense of what he was attempting to say -- alas, to no avail. As things turns out, there is in fact nothing comprehensible that Engels could have meant by what he said.

Any attempt to circumvent such objections with the counter-claim that moving objects occupy regions of space equal to their own volumes (hence a moving object will occupy two of these regions at the same time, occupying and not occupying each at the same time) cannot work either. This is because such a re-description would clearly depict a moving body occupying a region greater than its own volume at the same moment -- and that would plainly mean that such objects would not so much move as expand!

Worse still, Engels's account depicts objects moving between successive locations outside of time -- that is, they move between locations while time has advanced not one instant --, otherwise the said objects could not be in two places at the same moment. This is impossible to reconcile with a materialist (or even with a comprehensible) view of nature. Here, motion/change would take place outside of time!

This would further imply that we would not be able to say that a moving object was here before it was there. In the limit this would have the absurd consequence that if you set out on a journey, you would arrive at the same time as you left!

Finally, as noted above, this 'contradiction' was created by notorious ambiguities in Zeno's (and thus in Hegel's and Engels's) use of certain words (like "moment", "move", and "place"), which means that when these have been resolved, these alleged 'contradictions' simply disappear.

This argument is worked out in extensive detail here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2005.htm

So, it's a good job Marx abandoned 'the dialectic' as it has traditionally been understood by the time he wrote Das Kapital.

[Tribune]

Well, I'm going to take a long look at that very issue because it seems odd to say the least that Lenin would say that dialectics was at the core of his thinking and then not use it at all. The same goes for Trotsky. We know he used dialectics explicitly in the analysis of the Soviet Union and I'm guessing if you could ask him he'd say he also used it in the analysis of fascism and the Spanish civil war and so on.

However what I'm talking about goes beyond dialectics. Trotsky defined the 1930's Soviet Union as a degenerated workers state. This Rosa claims was the result of dialectical double-think. Perhaps. But then Rosa's alternative is to say that the Soviet Union was capitalist. This is because within the framework of HM (with or without dialectics) you only have two alternatives. If the Soviet Union was not a workers state it must have been a capitalist state. I think though you have to jump through just as many hoops to 'prove' that the Soviet Union was capitalism without a market or commodities as you do to 'prove' it was a workers state without the workers having political or economic power.

The problem comes down to the willingness to impose pre-defined abstract categories on reality even where they are clearly not appropriate or where they cannot be clearly demonstrated. Thus when Marx talks about social revolutions being driven by the need to develop the productive forces he's retrospectively imposing an abstraction on the whole of social reality. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this as long as the categories don't become more important than reality (in the minds of the people using them).

But if we take Marx's dictum that no mode of production ever passes away until the productive forces have been developed to their maximum potential within it then don't we have to say that social revolution in the 1920's was impossible because with the benefit of hindsight capitalism had far from exhausted its potential to develop the productive forces? If not then revolution becomes a matter of conjuncture (hate that word) rather than an event driven by the historical process.

So it seems to me that dialectics is far from being the heart of the matter when we look at revolutionary theory - there's a schematism and rigidity and worship of the idea of which dialectics is only a part.

(emphasis mine)

I'm certainly not going to take Rosa's place in the deconstruction of dialectical mysticism, but a first, second and third reading of this post highlit for me the same arbitrary waving of a peculiar magic wand (emphasized above, repeated below):


If the Soviet Union was not a workers state it must have been a capitalist state.

Is this Rosa's either/or, your interpretation of her position repostulated as an either/or, or your either/or?

[Hit The North]

Is this Rosa's either/or, your interpretation of her position repostulated as an either/or, or your either/or?

Judging from what LM writes, that she qualifies her statement with "(with or without dialectics)", it occurs to me that she's saying HM full-stop allows only these binary identifications.

I'm not sure what her evidence for this is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tribune:


Is this Rosa's either/or, your interpretation of her position repostulated as an either/or, or your either/or?

Alas, Louise no longer posts here, so you are unlikely to get a reply from her.

Anyway, it's not my 'either...or', if that helps.

I think BTB and I agree, at least, on this.

[Tribune]

Thank you Rosa and Bob.